The Wayback Machine - http://web.archive.org/web/20061028063028/http://www.brojon.org:80/frontpage/EINSTEIN-WENT-WRONG.html

BROTHER JONATHAN'S

FRONT PAGE NEWS

  BroJon Exclusive Report

Before Uncle Sam There Was Brother Jonathan

 

BroJon News: Wednesday April 6, 2005

WHERE DR. EINSTEIN WENT WRONG

Finding the Virtual Velocity of Light, Solving the Mystery of the Failed Michelson-Morley Experiment

In 1887, two scientists Michelson and Morley did an experiment to measure the velocity of light and confirm the basic laws of nature.


Albert A. Michelson in 1887 at the time of the famous M-M experiment

They sent light beams along the direction of the earth's travel as it went around the sun. The earth moves about 67,000 miles per hour around the sun, which is a small but measurable percentage of the velocity of light.

Their experiment was to show that a beam of light sent in the direction of the


Edward W. Morley in 1887 at the time of the famous M-M experiment

earth's travel should be the speed of light PLUS the speed of the earth. While a beam sent backwards should be the speed of light MINUS the speed of the earth. No matter how many times they and many other scientists repeated that same experiment, it always failed. The measured speed of light was always the same in any direction. For 20 years modern science was in a quandary. Were Newton's easily provable laws of physics wrong?

In 1905 Albert Einstein thought he had found a solution -- but he was wrong.

Earlier in 1873, the noted Scotsman mathema- tician/scientist James Maxwell wrote his famous four equations. His equations have become a gold-standard in science

James Clerk Maxwell as a young physicist

and are still accepted without changes or doubt. While integrating his differential equations, Maxwell had to add the mathematically required integration constant. In math, the integration constant is usually called "C."

Maxwell's equations relate the static electric attractive force of an electron to the same magnetic attractive force of a moving electron traveling in a circle or a coil of wire. To make the equations match the experimental measurements, the integration constant C had to have the units of 186,000 miles per second.

Everyone made the incorrect assumption that C was the "velocity of light." Today, science still calls the velocity of light C.


Even today most of Europe is in the same time zone

But not so. It was only an integration constant to make Maxwell's equations match the measurements. What the 19th century scientists, including Einstein, did not know nor have any experience with, was some- thing which we now know as "time zones." Time zones relate time to distance. Even today most of Europe is in the same time zone. None of the 19th century European scientist had ever experienced the need to change their watches as they traveled from country to country.

Today as we travel around the earth in fast jet planes we need to adjust our clocks and watches to the new time zone at the rate of 1 hour for each 1,000 miles of travel. This "virtual velocity" is not real, but simply the commonly accepted rate in "miles per hour" for calculating by how much we need to adjust our wrist watch as we travel.

This "virtual velocity" could be called the "C" of time zones. This "virtual velocity" or time conversion constant could be any arbitrary number, as long as we all accept the same number.

Michelson-Morely's first precisely accurate 1887 experimental set up on a rotating optical table made from a slab of granite

What is the "C" of time zones on Mars or the moon? It's not the same as on earth.

A proper analysis of the Michelson-Morley experiment shows that there are actually four possible explanations for the null or failed result. Most scientists, including Einstein, who had no experience with time zones, only saw three pos- sibilities. Many scientists in 1905 could not and some still do not fully accept Einstein's choice among the three possibilities - since his theory clearly violates our sense of reality, and Newton's laws of physics.

Einstein's Relativity Theory also produces a series of well-known paradoxes. In mathematics and logic, whenever a syllogism, system of logic or theory produces a paradoxical result, it is almost always the result of an incorrect premise.

That fourth possibility for explaining the mysterious result of the M-M experiment falls directly from the result of the failed Michelson-Morley experiment itself. That new fourth possibility is that the "virtual velocity" of light is infinity, while the "actual velocity" seeming to come from Maxwell's equations is 186,000 miles per second.

This is the same as when we travel in jet planes. We can measure

our "actual velocity" or local velocity on the jet plane as 350 miles per hour.

But we must add or subtract the "virtual velocity" of one hour for each 1,000 miles of travel, or the change in time zones, to make the answer match reality when we arrive at the destination. That's not hard or difficult to do. And we often do the calculation in our head. Add three hours to your watch as you travel the 3,000 miles from Los Angeles to New York.

This possibility of the "virtual velocity" of light

Dr. Albert Einstein, Professor at Princeton

solves the dilemma of the repeatedly failed Michelson-Morley experiment. If the "virtual velocity" of light is infinite, the "actual velocity" or apparent velocity 186,000 m/s will always appear to be the same regardless of the motion of the light source. Infinity PLUS the velocity of the earth is always the same as Infinity MINUS the velocity of the earth. Infinity plus or minus any number is always infinity. Thus the Michelson-Morley experiment was not a failure. It proves that Dr. Einstein was wrong.

I should add that I have a degree in physics from the University of Santa Clara. For years, I confounded my professors by working out complex problems in relativistic mechanics in my head. They said I was mostly exactly correct but at extremely high velocities near 99.99999 percent of the velocity of light, my answers were just a tad bit too big, compared to Einstein's equations. I said, that's because Einstein was wrong. I still got the physics degree anyway.

I should also add that recent experiments and measurements over long time periods or distances, such as the two Pioneer spacecraft which recently left beyond the edges of our solar system, seem to show that Einstein's equations give answers which are just a tad bit too small.




BroJon News: Wednesday July 19, 2005

WHERE DR. EINSTEIN WENT WRONG (Part 2)

Was Special Relativity a Hoax Accidentally Perpetrated on Science?

One hundred years ago, in 1905, Dr. Albert Einstein published his Special Theory of Relativity.

Dr. Abert Einstein

It has become the basis for much of modern physics. In 1959 I read his paper and found that it contained a simple arithmetic error, therefore the theory must be false.

Years later as a college physics student I told my professors about my discovery of the math error. They didn't believe me, even when I showed them a much simpler way to solve advanced physics problems. My solution was so simple that I could solve most of the problems in my head. Today as a senior physicist, I ask, "Why is it that modern science for 100 years has believed a theory which is based on a simple math error?"

The answer is simple. It was a mistake in the normal "peer review" process used by the prestigious physics journal in which Einstein's Special Relativity paper was first published. In 1905 the famed peer-reviewed German journal "Annalen der Physik" published Einstein's first paper on the Quantum Solution to the photoelectric problem.

Annalen der Physik

That unique and widely acclaimed paper had just won Einstein the Nobel Prize. To win the prize, obviously many esteemed physicists had reviewed that paper and established its reality and correctness.

But also in that very same journal issue, Einstein published several other avant-garde theoretical papers, including his "Special Theory of Relativity" which contained the math error. Why did no one catch the obvious error?

The Young Max Planck
Chief Editor Annalen der Physik

It was simply because chief editor, Max Planck or co-editor, Wilhelm Wien, had made the fateful decision not to send Einstein's Relativity paper out for the usual in-depth peer review. That Relativity paper, along with Einstein's other papers, were published without any scientific review.

Both of the young editors, Planck and Wien,

Wilhelm Wien
Co-Editor Annalen der Physik

later won Nobel Prizes themselves. They had made the editorial decision for "Annalen der Physik" that since Einstein had already just received a Nobel Prize, his prestige and popularity meant that his papers did not need to be peer reviewed.

It could be that Planck and Wien felt that publishing anything written by Einstein would enhance the popularity and circulation of the journal. But using the usual peer review process would slow down publication of the exciting new Einstein papers until the next year. Or it could be that Planck and Wien were so overawed by the genius of Einstein that they felt Einstein had no "peers." For whatever reason, the journal editors, with their high regard for the Nobelist Einstein, simply "broke the required rules" for publishing new theories in the "peer reviewed" physics journal.

It seems from the historical record that none of the other scientists around the world in the physics community knew that the journal had broken its own publication rules. The other scientists all assumed that since "Annalen der Physik" was a strictly "peer reviewed" journal, that Einstein's Relativity paper, with the simple math error, had already been reviewed and approved by a team of highly esteemed elite scientists. But not so.

Thus in the early 1900's no scientist would dare to point out the obvious math error in the Relativity paper. To have done so, the scientists thought, would be the same as calling the esteemed reviewers, the greatest minds of physics, a bunch of dribbling idiots and drooling dolts. Not a good thing to do if you want a future career in physics.

Because of the surreptitious and momentary Annalen der Physik change in editorial policy, no respectable scientist would dare to proclaim, "Look, the King has no clothes." It seemed to everyone that the whole scientific community was all ooohing and aaahing over the "King's invisible royal raiment" and how well it all seemed to match his new Nobel Prize.

In their competitive scramble to get along and go along within the physics community, the scientists simply could not see the truth of what was in front of them. It would take the innocence of a child to state the obvious. I was 14 at the time when I found the obvious math mistake in Einstein's paper.

I was then too young and naive to know that winning a Nobel Prize would automatically and magically correct math errors in physics papers. So I told what I had discovered to my teachers and professors. This had several unintended consequences.

As a student at Del Mar High School, I told my chemistry and physics teachers what I had found. Within days, I became widely known around campus as "The kid who proved Einstein wrong." I was unanimously elected president of the Special Science Group for advanced students.

I was the "wunderkind" at school and district board meetings, who made outrageous financial requests, backed by grants I had gotten from local Silicon Valley corporations, for advanced school science projects. Projects such as wiring up the school for TV, the year before cable TV was invented. I later met the man who invented cable TV, so I know.

I also clearly noticed that the usual number of requests from the really cute girls who had wanted to wear my athletic sweater had precipitously dropped to a nerdy zero. That athletic sweater, with the varsity block letters for track, cross-country, wrestling and football, with all the medals and ribbons cascading down the left arm. For an "active" teenager, this simply wouldn't do. I began a curious double-life.

I might whisper after school to my teachers about new science projects I was working on, but then not a word to my fellow students. "Sorry, Donna, what? Einstein? Never heard of him. Wanna see my first place California gold medal for 400-yard relay?" What two-faced cads teenage boys can be.

The curious double-life continued for decades. I found it difficult to find jobs in business and industry, even with multiple degrees in physics and engineering, with the appellation "The kid who proved Einstein wrong." I never mentioned it during job interviews. Otherwise, I often did not get the job because I was "way too over-qualified."

Bertrand Russell

Jobs in academe were impossible. In the university environment, not being a professed "believer" in Relativity Theory, was considered the near equivalent to being a heretic, blasphemer, or bomb-throwing anarchist.

By the 1960's, the Relativity Theory had already been widely "accepted" for so long and republished in so many advanced college textbooks, that most professors simply could not see the obvious math error which I had found.

They couldn't see it, because it "must not" exist. Too many famous scientists, who were much smarter than they were,

George Gamow

such as Bertrand Russell and George Gamow, had already proclaimed the theory to be true, therefore the simple math error can't exist. For them, the error was invisible, even when it was pointed out to them.

And what was that Simple Math Error? It's so simple even a child could figure it out. It was a matter of re-interpreting the meaning of the negative results of the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Einstein had interpreted the negative results as meaning that C is the constant velocity of light which nothing can exceed. That "fact" actually has never been proved and was and still is only a "hypothesis" stated by Einstein. He then set the speed limit at 186,000 mi/sec.

I have long disagreed with that method, since to make that work, Einstein had used the equation called the Lorentz Transform. This is both mathematically and logically incorrect.

The Lorentz Transform

The Transform seems to give the numerical or arithmetic "right answer," but mathematically it is false. The Lorentz Transform uses the square root of the velocity squared divided by C squared.

Mathematically all square roots have two answers, the positive and the negative root. Einstein, in his paper, seemingly without telling anybody, had arbitrarily tossed out the negative root as not having any physical meaning. But that is a mathematical and scientific "no-no" and means that the original premise of Einstein's Special Relativity Theory must be incorrect. Under the Lorentz Transform an object will travel at V = 1,000 mph East, and also -V = 1,000 mph West, at the same time. That clearly is paradoxical.

This is equivalent to Einstein stating in his theory that the square root of four is equal to two. For most people, those numbers seem absolutely correct. But actually that is false, since the square root of four is equal to both plus two AND minus two.

For the mathematically challenged, that is equivalent to Einstein claiming that two plus two is equal to five (2 + 2 = 5). And that same mind-boggling math error is published in every modern advanced physics textbook on Relativity Theory. But since, supposedly it was published in a respected "peer reviewed" physics journal, who would dare to argue with it?

The usual problem with producing a hypothesis based on a "false" premise is a paradoxical result. For example: (1) All dogs have four legs, (2) All four legged animals are cats. Therefore: All dogs are cats, AND/OR All cats are dogs! Which premise is false? With the Special Theory of Relativity, the resulting paradox, was called the "twin paradox" along with several others which were discovered later.

Amazingly, no theoretical physicist quickly tossed out Einstein's Special Relativity Theory as false, eventhough it produced a paradoxical result - indicating a false logical premise. The simple fact that Einstein himself published the "twin paradox," should have been a strong warning or at least a first clue that the Special Theory of Relativity must be wrong.

Actually, one noted physicist did toss it out and exactly for that reason. It was Einstein's own professor, Dr. Lorentz,

Dr. Hendrik Lorentz

who never accepted Relativity as a valid theory. Dr. Lorentz had developed the Lorentz Transform as a classroom demonstration tool in an attempt to explain the negative M-M experiment. He taught it to his students in advanced physics classes, including Einstein, as a simple "curiosity" which produced the seemingly correct arithmetic answer. But it did not produce the correct logical mathematic or scientific answer.

Dr. Lorentz already knew that the Transform must be false, for the reason I just mentioned. He already knew that his young student, Albert Einstein, using the Lorentz Transform, which Einstein had seemingly "lifted" out of his college classnotes, had produced a false "Theory of Relativity." Dr. Lorentz never accepted nor called it the "Theory of Relativity."

For the rest of his life, Lorentz always referred to it, in mock derision, only as "the Einstein theory" since he knew it must be false, because it produced the obvious paradox. Clearly, Lorentz did not get to "peer review" his student's paper. That Relativity paper would never have made it through a real and proper "peer review" process.

There actually is another simpler way to explain and solve the mysterious negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment.

The definition of "Alpha"
Fine Structure Constant

It uses the simple physical constant called "alpha," the Fine Structure Constant. It was the genius Einstein himself, who introduced the Fine Structure Constant in his first Nobel Prize winning paper about the Quantum nature of the photoelectric effect.

If Einstein had only used his own "alpha" as the basis for solving the M-M Experiment, instead of the Lorentz Transform in his Relativity paper, he would have found that all the forces of nature; the nuclear, electric, magnetic, and gravitational forces, were all simply variations of the same force.

Why is it that in the "time zone" of the nucleus of an atom, "time" seems to "slow down" so that the "measured velocity" of the electron appears to be only 1/137th the speed of light? But the electron's behavior seems to be that it is everywhere around the atom at the same time, or has a "virtual velocity" of infinity. The physical constant alpha turns out to be equal to 1/137.

It is as if the free energy of the electron has been gravitationally red-shifted by a nucleon-sized black hole. This changes all observed measurements of time and distance. The amount of time dilation or gravitational red-shifting of the electron in its ground state compared to the masses of the electron and proton are defined by the universally measured constant called "alpha."

The relationship between the "virtual" and "actual" velocity, meaning distance to time, of the electron is "c." The relationship of mass/energy to time, meaning gravity, is hidden within Planck's Constant "h." The relationship of electrical charge "e" to time and gravity is found in the "alpha" definition. Attempting to produce a complete system of universal science based only on the triumverate of "measured constants" e, c, and h, has proven to be insufficient and incomplete. It turns out that a minimum of four constants are needed to define all the properties of time and space.

All the tools needed to solve the mystery of the M-M Experiment problem are found in the definition of "alpha." No paradoxical square root of squares Lorentz Transform is needed. But 100 years ago, before the common use and experience of "time zones" to measure the passage of time in different locations around the world, nobody could see it.

All the natural forces of the universe, using Einstein's "alpha" could be described with a single equation. It was the "Unified Field Theory" which Einstein and many other esteemed theoretical physicists had long sought, but somehow had eluded them. Instead, for 100 years, a simple editorial mistake in a "peer reviewed" physics journal has led science astray.


BroJon News: Monday August 22, 2005

THE SHOCKING GREAT WAR:
CREATION VERSUS EVOLUTION
Who Has the Correct Answer?
It's Time to End the Insane Debate

ADDENDUM TO ALL THREE TRIPTYCH PARTS OF THE KINECHRON INVESTIGATION
  1. DID JOSHUA MAKE THE SUN STAND STILL -- Chapter 4
  2. WHERE DOCTOR EINSTEIN WENT WRONG -- Chapter 3
  3. WHAT REALLY KILLED THE DINOSAURS -- Chapter 6

RESOLVING THE GREAT DEBATE

Recently the Science Vs. Religion debate has heated up over the battle of which "theory" is correct -Creation or Evolution. The debate has recently ranged from the depths of the White House, to numerous School Boards, lawsuits and even many college campuses. And which theory is correct? It turns out that neither side can "prove" they are correct - for the simple reason that both sides are wrong.

1.) CREATION: The biblical text does not say that the earth is only about 4,004 years old. That was Bishop Usher who made that mistake and he was wrong -- not the bible. The bible, in fact, says nothing about age of the earth. Bishop Usher made a mistake in assuming that Genesis Chapter 5 was about the ages of the patriarchs.

Instead it contains a hidden critical piece of scientific information, necessary for maintaining the Hebrew culture - the exact length of the year, 365 days. Before about 2,000 BC, most middle-eastern advanced cultures used a 360 day lunar calendar which is good enough for being a shepherd or camel herder. But to be a true farmer and use agriculture, you need to know the exact length of the year to be able to know when to plant your crops the next year. I will explain and prove that in detail later.

So Bishop Usher was wrong. People who believe in the "young earth" are wrong, based on a mistaken translation by a Bishop who was not a scientist. A Bishop who didn't understand the scientific and historical meaning of Genesis 5, which documents the "evolution" of ancient cultures from hunter-gathering-herding societies, into full-fledged agricultural societies which need a proper 365 day solar calendar to survive.

2.) EVOLUTION: Charles Darwin was also very wrong. Evolution by "natural selection" was not the process which created the myriad lifeforms that now exist on earth. There is plenty of evidence which can prove that. The one item of critical evidence to prove that Darwin's Evolution is not correct is that after 150 years of diligent searching, not one, no, not even one example of a missing link or any intermediate species form has ever been discovered. But that is exactly what is needed to show Darwin's evolution theory was correct. Since no intermediate species have ever been found, therefore Darwin's gradual evolution theory by "natural selection" is shown to be false.

Thus the arguments for both sides of the heated debate between "creation vs evolution" are non-starters. They are BOTH wrong. It's like two blind people arguing over the color of the sky or the sun. Neither side can prove the other side is correct or incorrect. It is a useless debate and a waste of time. I won't mention the number of angels on heads of pins as another example of useless philosophical debates.

Actually, creation and evolution are also BOTH correct, to some degree. Not in anyway that most people believe -- but just enough to fool both sides into thinking that they each might actually be correct.

Every 1 to 2 million years, the magnetic field of the earth reverses the north and south magnetic poles. The earth itself does not reverse - just the magnetic field. During the reversal process, the earth's magnetic field, which usually acts as a shield protecting lifeforms from intense solar X-rays, gamma rays, and deadly dangerous ionizing particle radiation, suddenly disappears. The deadly intense solar radiation is momentarily allowed to strike the surface of the earth.

Within hours, about 99 percent of all life on earth is instantly killed by the intense radiation. Those few 1 percent of survivors, hidden in caves, in holes in the earth, or under water are highly deformed, damaged and mutated by the intense radiation causing direct damage to the DNA molecules in their reproductive cells. But the radiation damage is not visible in those survivors, but it is clearly seen in their direct offspring.

Within months or a year, or less than one generation, the surviving mutants which may or may not still be viable, may be able to reproduce. This results in multitudes of numerous competing similar but highly modified mutant lifeforms. Then and only then, does Darwin's evolution process of "natural selection," enter the scene, to cull the less able or disabled mutant forms to be lost to history, while the strong survivors with many new adaptable traits become numerous new species. The new species were suddenly "created" by the intense radiation within one generation.

Example: About 1 million years ago, during the last magnetic field reversal, one species, Saber Tooth tigers, were extremely irradiated and in less than a year became, modern lions, tigers, pumas, ocelots, bobcats, pussycats and numerous other feline species. None of the new species was ever seen before the massive radiation event at the magnetic field reversal. Darwin's "evolution" didn't and couldn't do all of that within several years. But that is what the geologic record shows -- almost instantaneous "creation" of many new species by intense random radiation with no intermediate "missing link" forms, and all within one generation.

Since the time of the age of dinosaurs, which ended 65 million years ago, there have been about 15 to 20 magnetic field reversals. At each reversal, there is almost instantaneous creation of multitudes of new lifeforms, usually resulting in many forms coming from just one earlier life form. And usually the earlier life form disappears, since it is no longer competitive.

Another example: The early horse, eohippus, about the size of a dog, disappeared, but became donkeys, horses and several equine variants such as zebras which are almost related species. Notice, in this process there is no gradual evolution -- and thus no "missing links" between species.

Charles Darwin, when he invented his evolution theory, knew nothing about this, since "radiation" was not "discovered" until 50 years later by Madame Currie. And the effect of radiation on DNA was completely unknown, until DNA was "discovered" by Watson and Crick 100 years after Darwin. Thus Darwin, in the mid-19th century, had no clue as to what might be the actual cause to make one species change into another species. Thus Darwin's Theory is wrong.

No missing links between species have ever been discovered. Now you know why. The new species were "created" almost in the blink of an eye, by intense solar radiation. No intermediate species or "missing link" were ever born. The new mutant species were born directly from their highly radiated and DNA-modified parents.

Thus, almost instantaneously, in geologic time, the new lifeforms are "created" by the intense radiation, and then the survivors quickly "evolved" in just one generation into the many viable new species.

Thus, it is time to end the inane debate between "creation versus evolution." Both scientific and religious "beliefs" are wrong and cannot be proved to be true. Both can be proved to be false. And also both are partly "right" -- but for the wrong reason.

Marshall Smith
Editor, Brother Jonathan Gazette
newseditor@brojon.com

-- BROTHER JONATHAN GAZETTE

 

  BroJon Exclusive Report

 
TELL A FRIEND ABOUT THIS ARTICLE
If you wish, you can add additional addresses, comments
and messages after the email window opens.
Enter the email address

Keep Up With the Latest BroJon Articles
CLICK TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE FREE
BROJON DAILY DIGEST

Click here to subscribe to the BROJON DAILY DIGEST

Subscribe

To respond to this story click here to email BROJON GAZETTE.   If you want to say something nice, we might read it.   If you only want to bitch then we will toss it without reading. BJNews is not responsible for the world situation nor your response to it.

BROTHER JONATHAN'S - FRONT PAGE NEWS

+ - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - +

Direct corrections and technical inquires to webmaster at brojon.com .
Please direct news submissions to newseditor at brojon.com .

All pages are Copyright 2005 the Teddy Speaks Foundation Inc., A Non-Profit Educational Corporation, Delaware USA
"BROTHER JONATHAN GAZETTE" and "BROTHER JONATHAN WEEKLY MAGAZINE" are Trademarks of
the Teddy Speaks Foundation, Inc. and the Kinderken Press.

+ - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - +




1